So says Sandra Fluke. It seems that the main concern is all the sex that is happening at school and how it depletes the money supply so there is nothing left for, say, crack, coke or alcohol. It can cost upwards of $1,000 a year for birth control and when you are on those public scholarships, oh how on earth will you be able to pay. Then you have those people with zits or cysts that need to have them. What? Birth control cures zits and cysts? Another friggin’ wonder drug. What bullshit for wanting others to pay for whoring around. Get a job. No, better yet, get a life.

I know about cysts and ovaries. I know about different birth control procedures and devices. I’ve lived through it and still am. This scam being perpetuated on the tax paying public is nothing more than another freebie for irresponsible people. A girl got raped and didn’t think she could go to the doctor? Wait a minute. This is a college student that doesn’t know how to research or read an insurance policy to know what is allowable? Ask questions of the policy provider? Call a nurse? Only the Dems would swallow this shit whole. “You have to pass it to read what’s in it”. Do they think that everyone is a valley girl from Ca.?

Go here and see what side effects come from birth control. Look at the damage and danger that comes from abortion. What are the medical costs to the general public for your careless acts of promiscuity? Oh, no one bothered to think about that aspect or even look these things up? Nothing but another freebie scam that we all will pay forever for. Use a condom. Have your sex and take your chance. Birth control is already free. It’s called abstinence. Take responsibility!

Comments

Written by Evan about 5 years ago.

You’re really linking to a site called “the pill kills?” Something approaching 99% of women in this country who are sexually active (in or outside of marriage) use birth control.* You lose people when you link to sites that are peddling obviously false info.

*Mosher WD and Jones J, Use of contraception in the United States: 1982–2008, Vital and Health Statistics, 2010, Series 23, No. 29.

Written by ACTivist about 5 years ago.

Evan, are you telling me that the side affects listed are not correct?. I kinda liked what this site stated. It makes one of the points to my post.

ACT, you’re responding to this issue exactly as the democrats hoped the conservatives would.
This is not about contraceptives , or the insurance companies being made to supply a recreational aid for free…

This is about the Federal Government stepping square onto the back of the people and tossing the First Amendment’s Freedom of Religion tenets out the proverbial window.
It is first and foremost a Constitutional infringement. That they used the contraceptive carrot to see what they could catch is democrats stupidity.

> Something approaching 99% of women in this country who are sexually active
> (in or outside of marriage) use birth control.

That is, quite simply, a LIE. The study actually says this: ‘More than 99% of women 15–44 years of age who have ever had sexual intercourse with a male (referred to as ‘‘sexually experienced women’’) have used at least one contraceptive method.’

Note the difference in tense between Evan’s lie (“USE”) and the report (“HAVE USED”).

Furthermore, those methods include withdrawal and periodic abstinence.

Lovisa….why do you object to a clarification of the fact?? You didn’t like the actual numbers?
Is this why you are readily ready to dismiss the clarification?
FWIW, I do not listen to Rush….since the prescription drug incident where the ACLU became his best buddy in his defense…and made him a household hypocrite.

Written by squiddy about 5 years ago.

What’s interesting is that, in her testimony, the one story with enough detail to be believable was about someone who didn’t want “contraceptives”, but for her insurance to cover a drug whose primary use is contraceptive, but for *medical* reasons. If they really did reject her legitimate request, documented by her doctor, then the insurance company should certainly be held to account – they were already required to provide coverage for that treatment, and apparently, failed.

I’ve seen this kind of thing before, where legit medicinal claims for, say, Botox or Retin-A, are routinely denied because the drugs are most often used for cosmetic, rather than medicinal purposes. And many, many patients (and doctors), have tried to scam insurance companies by asserting “medical reasons” for what’s really a cosmetic use.

But I hardly think the proper response is to just force insurance companies to pay for *all* prescription cosmetics, just in case there are some very small minority of patients with legitimate medicinal reasons to require Botox or Retin-A.

And that, in effect, is what she’s asking for – let’s force insurance companies to pay for *all* contraceptives, because there are some tiny minority who need it for medicinal reasons.

I mean, I’m sure there are some medical reasons for morphine, nicotine, marijuana, alcohol, and condoms – the equivalent of what she’s asking is to force all medical companies to pay for these things to anyone who can get a prescription. For most people, “contraception” is a lifestyle choice, not a medical treatment, and isn’t the reason for insurance.

Considering the etymology, I am always amused by the phrase “HER testimony.”

Written by Wolverine about 5 years ago.

The question arises as to how Sandra Fluke and the friends and acquaintances she has cited were somehow “obliged” to attend Georgetown Law and, being so “obliged,” have been wrongfully denied access to something they believe they need and deserve. More and more it seems that the personal wants and desires come first and that the expectation has become that a religious institution in opposition to such must somehow be forced to ignore its own religious doctrines to satisfy those who do not hold to those doctrines. If Ms. Fluke considers her own preferred sexual mores and her belief in contraception for both unrestrained pleasure and potential health reasons to be so important, perhaps she should have considered GW Law or American University Law or any of thousands of other law schools in this country for the attainment of her educational goals.

Written by Eric the 1/2 troll about 5 years ago.

I sincerely hope that you all are successful in mainstreaming a push to strip coverage for contraceptives from health insurance plans. Please continue…

Written by Wolverine about 5 years ago.

No, Eric, you seem to either misunderstand or intentionally distort the emphasis here. It is not contraceptives per se. It is the right of a religious organization not to have to pay for a part of a health insurance program which contravenes their own doctrines. You seem to be unwilling to afford any courtesy or recognition at all to tenets of religious faith if they get in the way of your own secular beliefs. So, after forcing the Catholic Church to subsidize violations of this particular tenet of their faith, what is next for you? To force them to pay for health plans which finance abortions as well?

You also seem to be a sucker for or a player in Obama’s cute little Plan A and Plan B scam, with Plan B calling for the insurance companies to provide free contraceptives so the religious organizations in opposition do not have to pay. Well, the fact is that you live in an area which is a part of the Catholic Diocese of Arlington and Catholic Charities of Arlington. Both of these organizations are self-insurers, which means that they would pay under both parts of the Obama scam. In effect, you are asking the church to subsidize two things for Ms. Fluke which violate their own teachings: contraception and extra-marital sex. Who in the Hell do you think you are to demand the right to force a religious organization to contravene its own doctrines?

Since Obama is all powerful and respected, why didn’t he just go to the drug manufacturers and force them to contribute “free” contraceptive drugs as part of being able to continue doing business in these United States? Then, for all intents and purposes, those drug companies would have stopped said manufacture of requested “free” drugs and there would no longer be an issue. If not, then everyone that wanted those “free” drugs would surely get them FREE from the manufacturer and life would be bliss. Why do I, others, relgions, etc. HAVE to get stuck with a bill that we don’t believe or ascribe to? And this is in the “best interest” of everyone how?

Written by ACTivist about 5 years ago.

Lovisa, you scallywag. How would you know if I were listening to Rush unless YOU listened to Rush? Believe it or not, I am sometimes amazed at the like-minded thinking I read about and often perplexed at those few who are astute enough to see the obvious. I don’t know how Rush thinks in relation to my way of thinking. Don’t worry, this blog is too small to be significant so your secret about listening to Rush regularly is safe.

Written by Eric the 1/2 troll about 5 years ago.

Wolv,

There is already a legal exclusion for religious institutions. It has been in effect and working well for quite some time now. This is now an attempt to extend that exclusion to “religiously affiliated organizations” and even further to bosses who simply have a “moral” objection to the coverage. You don’t see a problem with that. I do. I do not think I should have the right to deny cancer treatment coverage to smokers or diabetes coverage to overweight people because I have a moral problem with their habits or actions, do you?

If we agree that there should be a standard for healthcare coverage (which I understand many on here do NOT agree with) then the age old religion exclusion should apply.

But that is neither here not there because this statement… ” This scam being perpetuated on the tax paying public is nothing more than another freebie for irresponsible people”… and the horrendous statements of Rush Limbaugh belie your characterization. This is all about judgement of the morality of many young (and not so young) women and some people’s wishing to make a mainstream push to remove contraceptive coverage from insurance policies. The argument goes, “if they want to be immoral and engage in sex but not run the risk of becoming pregnant, let them pay for their own contraception – I shouldn’t have to.” They have let their hand show and when they get called on it they run behind a rock and say “no..no…it REALLY about religious freedom.” I say bullshit.

Written by Wolverine about 5 years ago.

Eric, if there was, as you say, a workable exclusion already in place, there would be no argument on this issue. You are, in effect, trying to split the church up into parts, claiming that its doctrinal beliefs apply only to one building, the actual church building, and not to the organizations over which it has pastoral care as well as spiritual and financial responsibility. That includes the schools, hospitals, and other institutions which it sponsors and would likely not exist without the faith, financial, and every other connection between church-related institutions. A parish church, for example, does not sit alone and apart from the religious school which it has founded and to which its parishioners adhere out of a matter of common faith and a common set of beliefs. You cannot try to separate that school from the church on social issues central to church doctrine and deny that you are interfering in the free practice of their faith. You may be able to do so if that church is violating the rights of someone outside their faith; but, since contraception insurance coverage is available to anyone outside that church, it is not a violation of my rights as a Protestant for the Catholic Church to not want to violate their own doctrines by providing such through their own institutions. No one can force either you or I to adhere to the Catholic faith or to use or work in its connected institutions against our will.

In my opinion, the current debate over contraception is purely a political ploy in an attempt to garner votes by causing further diviseness in the body politic. It is carried to an extreme by the claims that even Catholic women want and use contraception. Whether true or not, that argument is totally irrelevant. It is an issue between those within the Catholic Church and an issue to be sorted out by them alone. As a non-Catholic, it is none of my business. Nor is it the concern of any other non-Catholic.

In a nation where, even in the midst of warfare, we do not drag Amish boys from their homes and force them to carry guns on a battlefield, I fail to see how contraception reaches a level in which we should feel free to demand that Catholics violate the tenets of their own faith simply because we do not agree with those tenets. I say this as an actual “apostate” who left his own Protestant denomination after a debate over issues which I need not explain. I left because I had the constitutional freedom to leave under the dictates of my own conscience. What I will not claim is some fancied right to bend that religious denomination to my own will. They believe in what they believe, and I believe in what I believe. I respect them for their adherence to and defence of their faith and am quite willing to leave them in peace. And that is an end on it.

Written by Ed Myers about 5 years ago.

Here’s how this plays out if you make the religious exemption very broad. A business discovers that if it affiliates with a church it can significantly transfer the burden of health care onto its workers (or government) instead of out of its revenue. This makes it’s bottom line better. You quickly have scams develop: the Church of the Spaghetti Monster Business Inc, etc. claiming religious exemptions to government taxes. It took years and $350M before the government shut down one Medicaid fraud operation so enforcement isn’t likely to prevent religious exemption abuse.

The solution is not to exempt employers, but to show that it is really the employee’s choice and not the employer. All medical insurance costs should be added to the employees salary and then deducted pre-tax just like 401K and child care. Allowing businesses to reduce cost through self insurance encourages hiring discrimination…hire only the young and healthly and when layoff time comes getting rid of those with diabetes, cancer thereby forcing them onto disability and make government the payer of health care.

Written by Cathymac/Loudoun Lady about 5 years ago.

The Great One puts this all in perspective on Breitbart, Rush and the total fake 30 year old Sandra Fluke:

Wolverine, been having an interesting discussion with a famous local liberal on the difference between “rights” and “privileges”.

Since voting, abortion, and contraception are all “rights”, they should be held to a much lower standard than beer and cigarettes, which are just “privileges”.

Got to say, the idea that someone is granting me the right to a beer IF I prove my age with a picture ID as a “privilege” is just about as scary as the idea that free everything else is a right (today).

—————————-
Cmac, I think it was a Malkin column that linked to an interview where Fluke said she researched the health policy, and accepted the scholarship for the express purpose of fighting the contraception issue.

Written by G.stone about 5 years ago.

Ms. Fluke is an Pelosi lefty operative. She is a hack conned into becoming a poster child for “reproductive rights” pay her no attention. She and everyone else on the planet can pay for their own contraceptives. Why is this even a topic of discussion ?

I frankly don’t care who she sleeps with, what method she has chosen, just pay for it yourself yound lady. I ‘ll bet your your parents are so proud you have decided to tell the world about your sex life and its costs.

Written by ACTivist about 5 years ago.

What she gets in return from her companion is, what–couple drinks? Dinner? Movie? Maybe it’s just lust. If she were smart about it, she would tell the guys persuing her that before she can sleep (or stand or sit) with them, they must buy her birth control first.. If it’s that good, they’ll cough up the bucks.

Written by Cathymac/Loudoun Lady about 5 years ago.

Ms Fluke and the flukies are now complaining that she is getting dragged thru the mud, while she is the one that went before congress on national TV to talk about her very expensive (and apparently active?) sex life.

I don’t know what kind of lawyer she will make if she can’t google “free birth control washington dc” to find that it is plentiful. Remember the free condoms being handed out on the Metro about a dozen years ago? This would be a great enterprise for Union paid Occupy protestors that need something to do with their time. From what I read about their encampments, the need the condoms!

Written by Eric the 1/2 troll about 5 years ago.

“She and everyone else on the planet can pay for their own contraceptives. Why is this even a topic of discussion ?”

Wolv, …QED

My opinion, therefore still is valid…

“I sincerely hope that you all are successful in mainstreaming a push to strip coverage for contraceptives from health insurance plans. Please continue…”

I mean that with all my heart, G. Stone. I really hope this makes it to the Republican platform.

Written by Eric the 1/2 troll about 5 years ago.

“…that she is getting dragged thru the mud, while she is the one that went before congress on national TV to talk about her very expensive (and apparently active?) sex life.”

So what Limbaugh said about her…she had it coming, in your opinion, eh?

Written by Eric the 1/2 troll about 5 years ago.

“Eric, if there was, as you say, a workable exclusion already in place, there would be no argument on this issue.”

How can you contend that, Wolv. The Church will always try to extend their exclusion and therefore their influence and power over the secular. But this has already been argued and decided and the exclusion only applies to the church itself and not its affiliates. The policy (as ORGINALLY outlined) was completely consistent with existing legal decisions on the matter. Additionally, the Right now wants to extend the exclusion further than ever considered to any person who wants to be excluded on “moral” grounds.

See my example above as to why a tighter line must be drawn.

Written by Cathymac/Loudoun Lady about 5 years ago.

It’s actually the democrat platform we are discussing Troll. This is what they do.

They are the ones pushing the contraception issue, the conservatives of the republican party realize this is about mandates, freedom and choice.

Written by Wolverine about 5 years ago.

So, Eric, in a discussion of a specific attempt by the Catholic Church to preserve one aspect of its own religious liberty under the Constitution, you want to move the debate into a wider, anti-theological condemnation based on your own perceptions of the ultimate intentions of the Church. No sale. This discussion is about a variety of forms of contraception which are all opposed doctrinely by the Catholic Church and the unwillingness of that Church to let you split apart for your own secular purposes the varied components which the Church has always considered to be integral parts of the whole body of their faith. And your claim that this has been settled by “law” and that this ought to be the end of it is a bogus one. Laws and administrative regulations can be amended and/or repealed within the political mechanism and nullified within the judicial system. They often are.

Obama and Sibelius have given us an unnecessary dispute of their own making, and their attack mode appears to me to be intentionally divisive in the midst of a political campaign — a blatant attempt to pit Catholic women and Catholic institutions against their own church. Well, I have a message for them and for you from three Catholic women (Mrs. Wolverine and her two adult daughters) who are at this very moment attending Saturday evening Mass: keep your hands off the religious liberty of our faith!

Written by squiddy about 5 years ago.

“So what Limbaugh said about her…she had it coming, in your opinion, eh?”

Won’t speak for Cathymac, but in my opinion, what Limbaugh said what disgusting and immature — and will no doubt backfire. When you engage in such over-the-top ad hominem attacks on someone, by definition, you’ve changed the subject from the premise to the person – and in most people’s eyes, she now “wins” the argument.

I found her the basis of her testimony contrived and weak, at best – now, by attacking her personally, he (and others) have managed to all-but lose the argument. The door will now be shut to further discussion.

They’ll never learn. People like that say “well, liberals do it” – well, I thought “Rush”, that you were supposed to be “better” than those liberals?

I get it – playing the “dozens”, as it were, in a debate can be fun – but the clip I heard on the radio was just ugly and immature – shame on you, Limbaugh.

If you read this correctly, it is but another divisive diversion to distract from the real intent. Obama has been working, and shown it from the beginning, that he further intends to flex a power that he, alone, feels that he holds. That power is to dismantle and circumvent that which is not bestowed to him from the Constitution. This man has managed to raise ire from both those that believed in him and those that don’t. The problem is that he has been acting unchecked since a stay that is necessary for most of his actions takes too much time to go through the process which doesn’t occur readily as is required. Each action that he takes means there is another action brought to counter it. And those actions take time to process for a judgement. Obama has already said that the Constitution gets in his way. The bottom line is he will try and nullify one amendment at a time. Those that believe in him are doing nothing but following is idea for America–nullifying a document they don’t believe in to bring about a socialist nation that they want. It doesn’t get any simpler than that. This contraception scam is another step in the process. Smoke and mirrors.

Written by Jack about 5 years ago.

If you want birth control, pay for it yourself. If Miss Fluke’s partners don’t think she’s worth paying for a condom why should anyone else?

If the government paid $500 to every 12year old girl who agreed to be injected with free long term birth control metering device that prevent pregnancy for 10 years, we would save money on abortions, etc. Just like saying those under 21 aren’t ready to make responsible decisions about smoking or drinking, children aren’t ready to decide about getting pregnant. They also aren’t ready for sex but we would be at least be limited to concerns about STDs for those who do experiment with sex before the age of maturity.

It is a taxpayer hedge. Pay a little now to prevent long-term costs for abortions and social services.

Written by Eric the 1/2 troll about 5 years ago.

“So, Eric, in a discussion of a specific attempt by the Catholic Church to preserve one aspect of its own religious liberty under the Constitution, you want to move the debate into a wider, anti-theological condemnation based on your own perceptions of the ultimate intentions of the Church. No sale.”

This exactly my point, Wolv. The CC is not “preserving one aspect of its own religious liberty”. It is trying to extend its “liberty” further than what is currently decided law by the SCOTUS. While you are correct that it CAN be reversed, it would indeed be a broad extension and application of the religious exclusion. I argue for the status quo, the CC argues to move the debate to a wider application.

Written by Eric the 1/2 troll about 5 years ago.

“If you want birth control, pay for it yourself.”

At least, Wolv, you have dropped the facade that THIS is not what is really underlying the argument of many on the Right.

You go, Jack!!

Written by ACTivist about 5 years ago.

“If the government paid $500 to every 12year old girl who agreed to be injected with free long term birth control metering device that prevent pregnancy for 10 years, we would save money on abortions.”

The logic of the left. If you give the money to inject 12 year olds now, we won’t have to start paying for their abortions until they are 22. Brilliant! That is like a 10 year tax holiday, isn’t it? But what about addressing morals before that age to the children so that we don’t give them the wrong impression about abortion is really murder? Maybe by having them attend church……just not Ed’s church.

So you want to buy your own chastity belt? Are you going to guarantee to hold the taxpayer harmless from all costs related to an unexpected pregnancy? My thought experiment is optional procedure with a tax incentive. If your daughter gets pregnant before age 22 there is a $10,000 fine for parents who declined to accept the procedure for their children. Oh, don’t forget this achieves the objective of eliminating abortion.

The longer-term birth control already exists…has for 20 years. Research Norplant.

Written by Lovisa about 5 years ago.

Yea, 22 is a good age. By then, those who attend college would, supposedly, have graduated and not have to bother the school insurance company with concentraceptives. The parents would take over, since it’s now possible to keep your “child” on your policy until age 26 at which age, hopefully, the “child” will be able to take care of his/her own contraceiptives and health/sick care.

Written by Cathymac/Loudoun Lady about 5 years ago.

Ed, You are completely off the deep end on this. Lovisa agreeing is really interesting. Good Luck in your arguments on controlling girls and women until they are 22 with devices, belts and penalties.

Written by G.stone about 5 years ago.

Ed. You are a scary guy. This is the mind of a social engineer who can’t think past his own bad and might I say dangerous ideas, as well as a fellow with a low reagrd for freedom.You would have been a great administrator for PolPot.

Written by Ed Myers about 5 years ago.

Stone & LL: explain why offering free optional reproductive services to kids is a bad idea. We even have mandatory thing like HPV immunity. Isn’t Norplant just a vaccine against pregnancy?

Low regard for freedom was built right into that trans-V disaster. You don’t like my proposal because it is controlling women’s reproductive health? Really? The Norplant is purely optional unlike that needless ultrasound. At least my thought experiment provides the tools and funding to prevent pregnancy and abortion rather than pretend that “just say No” is going to work and then when it doesn’t the taxpayer is going to pick up the tab.

Who gets to be free? Taxpayers free from having to fund abortion or teenagers free to be irresponsible with sex? If we are serious about ending abortion then we have to do something that will actual end it and not just go tsk, tsk.

Written by Wolverine about 5 years ago.

Eric — I didn’t “drop the facade” because I had no facade to drop. This debate is not about contraception or sexual mores with regard to society as a whole. It is purely and simply a dispute over the guarantees of religious liberty afforded by the First Amendment. The cries from the opposition about wanting to outlaw contraception for all or engage in a “War Against Women” are typical red herrings put out there for political purposes. The multiplicity of lawsuits filed by state attorneys general and religious institutions, Catholic and Protestant, against HHS on this issue are all ticketed to First Amendment rights. The call by some Catholic bishops for civil disobedience is a defensive action to protect religious liberty, not an offensive action to force Ms. Fluke or anyone else to genuflect to Catholic principles. One thing is clear here. If POTUS was looking for a fight over this, he is going to get one. I have not heard an American Catholic leader call for civil disobedience of any kind since the travails of the Vietnam War era.

Written by ACTivist about 5 years ago.

“ACT, are you objecting to others having sex, except for procreation? If abortion is murder, why wouldn’t you want to protect the innocent fetuses by preventing their creation.”

I have nothing against making love and the morality concern, as well the consequences, lies solely on the shoulders of those committing the act. Old saying is “if you can’t do the time, don’t do the crime” meaning you gotta “pay to play” meaning you take all responsibility for your own actions. Paying for contraception/abortion is not my responsibility. Now you don’t mind illegals using hospitals as their private doctor and the cost encured by the taxpayer but you are concerned about the cost of abortion being more costly than never ending birth control to whoever wants it? I understand your logic here but it just doesn’t mesh with our dimension’s reality. In other words, I believe you live in an alternate universe and are speratically phasing into this one.

Written by Cathymac/Loudoun Lady about 5 years ago.

The mandatory HPV vaccination isn’t really mandotory, there is an opt-out provision here in VA. I am not defending it, just stating that it is not mandatory. I have a natural inclination to buck all mandates, particularly ones that deal with my body and that of my minor daughter. Again Ed, you are over the line and you don’t even relaize it.

“I have a natural inclination to buck all mandates, particularly ones that deal with my body and that of my minor daughter.”

Ultrasounds, too?

Written by Ed Myers about 5 years ago.

If an opt-out provision make mandatory HPV vaccines OK, how about an opt-out for all abortion restrictions. If someone doesn’t want a waiting period, the ultrasound, the regulations on abortion facilities they can simply opt-out on moral grounds? These mandates all have an impact on someone’s daughter.

Written by Ed Myers about 5 years ago.

Wolverine, Do you think religious groups that oppose war on moral grounds should be able to opt out of paying the FICA tax for their employees because it is used to indirectly fund war?

Written by Lovisa about 5 years ago.

cathymac

Good night!

Written by Cathymac/Loudoun Lady about 5 years ago.

I didn’t state that the opt-out provision made the HPV mandate OK, just stated that it is not really a mandate if you can opt-out.

Not sure if you notice the difference between abortion restrictions and a vaccination, but if you don’t then I can’t help you.

Written by Marjorie about 5 years ago.

Think THX1138……

Written by Ed Myers about 5 years ago.

LL, There is no liberty difference between a health care mandate and a health care restriction. Both prevent freedom to care for your body the way you want. In one case they prevent you from doing something and the other they force you to do something. There is no free choice in either case. ObamaCare and abortion restrictions are partisan views of the same thing–using big government to dictate citizen health care choices.

Written by Cathymac/Loudoun Lady about 5 years ago.

There is a difference between a mandate like a vaccination (that has been around for decades)- MMR, polio, that have saved millions of lives and late term abortions. Sorry you still don’t see the difference between saving lives and ending life, but that is one of your core problems Ed – you aren’t dealing in reality. Or common sense.

Perhaps you agree that newborns are the same as a child in the womb and can be killed justifiably?

Written by G.stone about 5 years ago.

Ed. This is very simple. You have a knee jerk need to engineer society. Just as the despots of the past who have been dispatched to ash heap of history, to the confused nitwits of the day who simply believe they simply didn’t get it right, you have it wrong. You continue to come down on the side of a state solution moving further and further from individual responsibility, free markets and freedom. Whether its guns, abortion, vaccinations or the rights and freedoms of the individual, you gravitate and embrace the state. As a collectivist Utopian who believes solutions are found via central planning, you simply can’t help yourself.

“It is purely and simply a dispute over the guarantees of religious liberty afforded by the First Amendment.”

Jack and G.Stone’s comments (quoted above) say this simply is not true.

But even if it is true (which is obviously is not if Jack and G are to be believed), here is a question for you. If employers are allowed an exclusion to federal law (you can not after all make the exclusion apply to just one law and not all) based on “moral” grounds. What is to stop the CC from firing all divorced employees the day ofter passage? Divorce, after all, is against the beliefs and tenets of the CC and they should not be forced to fund that lifestyle. Correct?

Written by Cathymac/Loudoun Lady about 5 years ago.

Lloyd – I see both sides of the debate on the ultrasound bill, I don’t like the fact that there is yet another mandate being proposed – however an ultrasound is already standard procedure for women seeking abortions and is on best practice lists of providers like PP. Virginia would not be the first state to implement this mandate, so this is hardly trailblazing into stomping on “reproductive rights”.

Unfortunately every time this bill is mentioned there is no real discussion – it is merely a contest to see who can say “vaginal” “probing” or “insertion” the most. I have no desire to debunk claims of “rape by probing” for those that are considering abortion and other disgusting assertions, considering what an abortion requires. Mocking this topic is not in my interest.

You,’re right, Triberal. It’s kinda like that picture that they take of you on that hairy roller-coaster where you are peeing your pants and screaming like a little girl. You should have the option to either remember the incident or forget the nightmare. After all, if your memory can’t do the job, what good is the picture?

Written by squiddy about 5 years ago.

“If employers are allowed an exclusion to federal law (you can not after all make the exclusion apply to just one law and not all) based on “moral” grounds. What is to stop the CC from firing all divorced employees the day ofter passage? Divorce, after all, is against the beliefs and tenets of the CC and they should not be forced to fund that lifestyle. Correct?”

In the end, I agree with your premise.

Personally, I find this entire episode to be quite instructive — and should be an object lesson to people that you “get what you vote for.”

Most Catholics supported Obama, and the church itself supported his healthcare plan – until they realized the cost – that the government doesn’t necessarily share your beliefs about what’s important or moral. And since you’ve now delegated that to the government, well, careful what you wish for.

And when the day comes that HHS next dictates that abortions must be funded in the interest of women’s health, and when some government board decides that investing in a hip replacement, or heart surgery for a senior citizen doesn’t meet cost-benefit ratios, given their age and the cost, and instead should just take a pain pill, or better yet, just die, to save Social Security payouts, just remember, this is what you voted for.

I really have no problem with the Church’s firing, or not hiring, divorced employees. In fact, I have no problem with anyone who does that. It is the EMPLOYER’S money to spend as he sees fit, to hire and fire as he sees fit.

The 2 arguments I have heard that are most compelling for mandating the ultrasound is to (1)verify that it is not an ectopic pregnancy and (2) to protect women from abortion providers that are looking at the procedure as a revenue stream, and will perform a procedure on a woman that is not even pregnant. Blood tests can only determine so much.

It wasn’t until the McDonnell administration that abortion clinics were operating outside of the rules and regulations surrounding ambulatory surgery centers and were operating as doctor’s offices. I totally agree with this regulation, you can’t get any more invasive than an abortion:

squiddy, I was just getting use to the idea of repealing Obamacare and you have to re-introduce that which hastens my demise. Please, I don’t want to die by panel so allow me to have bliss of ignorance just a while longer!

Written by Eric the 1/2 troll about 5 years ago.

“(1)verify that it is not an ectopic pregnancy and (2) to protect women from abortion providers that are looking at the procedure as a revenue stream, and will perform a procedure on a woman that is not even pregnant.”

Well to take number 2 first, the external sonogram which is the only ultrasound actually mandated by the legislation can not confirm if the patient is pregnant in the first 8 weeks or more. So the legislation does nothing in this regard (in effect). Number 1 IS the only good reason for the procedure and is likely why most providers do it in any case. So in the end, the legislation does nothing in this regard either. It does nothing, that is, except give certain lawmakers a supposed pro-life piece of legislation to wave about – one that does nothing to promote or support the pro-life position of reducing abortions. Nothing conservative about it at all.

“The 2 arguments I have heard that are most compelling for mandating the ultrasound is to (1)verify that it is not an ectopic pregnancy and (2) to protect women from abortion providers that are looking at the procedure as a revenue stream, and will perform a procedure on a woman that is not even pregnant. Blood tests can only determine so much.”

Funny that the story line from the right wing was nothing like that. As I recall, it was about informed consent regarding gestational age, and allowing the mother to see the fetus she was going to abort. Certainly, the requirement that the mother be offered a view of the ultrasound is not to address concerns about revenue streams or ectopic pregancies.

Written by squiddy about 5 years ago.

Sorry, ACT – but thing is, as ignorant as I am? I still don’t see any of this promised “bliss” …

But really, my point is larger than “health care” – it’s selling out your life to the kindly old federal government, that just wants to take care of you.

I’m of two minds about this and all of the other policies this administration wants – a part of me hopes they get everything they want – because only then, when the accounts are called in, will people finally be forced to confront the costs of getting what they “want”, that there’s no free lunch – when you turn the federal government into the source of everything – your health care, your guarantor of income and housing and food and services, well, you see how much “free” costs.

Because we can’t spend over a trillion dollars a year more than you take in, which will accelerate as baby boomers continue to retire – no one is taking a Social Security/Medicare holiday, yet we foolishly suspend the payroll tax for another year.

No, eventually, we’ll reach the point where we’ve borrowed the last penny we can borrow, we’ve cleaned out the sofa cushions, and we find that half of our tax collections will go towards debt service, half goes to the safety net, half goes to infrastructure/services, and half goes to military.

What happens then? Do we eat the rich? And what happens after that?

Written by Cathymac/Loudoun Lady about 5 years ago.

Well Lloyd, you must not do a lot of reading. Sorry you are so narrowly informed.

There are a variety of reasons people supported this mandate, I listed the two reasons I considered the best.

Written by ACTivist about 5 years ago.

Well, squiddy, in light of what you just said (and it is a bleak outlook compared to the damage done before the “light bulb” gets turned on) it appears that I should take this 7 week extension class for a medical license from the U. of New Delhi, just so I can perform all necessary medical procedures for Mama and me in our old age. If I wait for the epiphany of understanding by the general citizenry and the all knowing government, I will have already had my death panel diagnosis and been worm food for some time. No thanks. I’m opting for the computer course.

Written by Wolverine about 5 years ago.

Sorry, Ed. No diversions accepted here. One war at a time. You know as well as I do that the debate over war tax exemptions is much more complicated than the current issue and has been going on ever since the Quakers objected to financing arms to fight the Indians in the French and Indian war. However, I will throw out one tidbit for you to munch on. I recently read somewhere in the tax exemption by conscience literature that, since about 1965, the Amish have been exempted from paying Social Security. Why did the USG give that to them? Because their religious doctrine is opposed to “insurance.” So, it happens.

Eric — same goes to you about these diversions. Divorce and how the Church might handle it in some hypothetical situation is a subject apart. Stick to the topic at hand, which is quite clearly whether a POTUS has the right by fiat or even law to override the religious liberty of the First Amendment.

Written by Wolverine about 5 years ago.

Squiddy — You are quite right about the American Catholic hierarchy and ObamaCare. Contrary to the misinformation coming out of the mouths of the likes of the White House Press Secretary, the Church has been in the forefront of seeking greater medical assistance for the poor since early in the last century. I think that there is now a realization within the Church that many in the Council of Bishops were snookered by Obama during the period leading to Congressional acceptance of Obamacare. I have even heard some priests and pastors refer to certain bishops as having been naive. They actually believed Obama’s promise that religious liberty would not be affected in the least. Therein the first and biggest mistake.

Written by squiddy about 5 years ago.

That’s the thing I dislike about all of this – the Catholic Church, for all of its faults, does a tremendous amount of good in the world, probably more than any other (secular or not) organization on the planet, in terms of helping the poor and needy, with healthcare, education, food and housing programs, and yes, defending human rights (which is more of a political realm.)

Yet they’re getting vilified over this, about how backwards and archaic they are — and I guarantee you, the next liberal that posts on this topic will mention “pedophilia” or “Da Vinci” …

And before anyone goes there, do some real research on that – the Catholic Church did more to advance public education, lift Europe out of the Dark Ages, and spark the Renaissance (not to mention, prevent Europe from falling under Islamic rule), than *any* other thing on the planet, in history.

I’m no Catholic, and there’s much they’ve done wrong – but I have nothing but respect for the good they’ve done in this world.

Written by Ed Myers about 5 years ago.

Wolverine, thanks for answering the question in a polite and thoughful way.

The Amish are a good example. They do have a legislated exemption for paying SS on their farm income (because they refused to accept any benefits.. see http://www.amishnews.com/amisharticles/amishss.htm) but they do not have an exemption when it comes to their “english” hired hands. (I would guess — an educated one since my brother lives in an Amish community — that most of them structure their working relationships as subcontractor rather than employees to keep their finances simple.)

I think that is the line that I would draw for the Catholic Church as well. That is why I suggested that we restructure health care so that it is clear that it is the employee’s salary funding health care and not an employer expenditure. Just like an employee of an Amishman might need disability or retirement, so an employee of Catholic Charities might need contraceptive care. Religious freedom means we are tolerant of minority beliefs while expecting not to be terribly inconvenienced by them.

Written by Wolverine about 5 years ago.

Hmmm — Interesting thought in your Para 2, Ed. The real problem for Catholics with Obama’s purported compromise is that many Catholic institutions are self-insurers, meaning they would be involved in payment in some fashion under all the plans proposed thus far. Now, if non-Catholic employees of Catholic institutions could be made to understand as a condition of employment that they would have to pick up their own reproductive health costs out-of-pocket or through their own self-purchased supplementals, that just might work. As a non-Catholic surrounded by Catholic family, I feel that Catholic employers are on the whole good people to work for, and I wouldn’t consider that to be an excessive burden if a good job in a valuable institution was in the offing. Just to add some emphasis here, I just came out of a cut and sew up job at the Georgetown University Hospital Surgery Center; and that place is full of enthusiastic and caring staff of every conceivable ethnic variety. A portrait of the Pope on the lobby wall and the chapel just a few steps from the front door gives you that “Catholic feeling” for sure; but this old reprobate Protestant was treated like a king. And I didn’t see a long face in the entire crowd.

Written by Jay Hughes about 5 years ago.

I think market forces will handle this nicely. If people want contraception as part of their employer provided benefits plan then only go to work for employers who will offer it. Georgetown University Hospital Surgery Center can accept the consequences if many of their employees choose to leave GUHSC and work for another medical provider if they want contraception in their benefits plan that bad.

Written by Barbara Munsey about 5 years ago.

I was raised Catholic, and I wonder how much of this is the have cake/eat cake syndrome?

Even though Georgetown is Catholic, it is also a huge prize to have on your resume. “I want a Georgetown credential; I deserve one. And I deserve birth control, and it’s my right to have it free. If Georgetown won’t give it to me, they’re wrong, and it needs to change. Not just for me, but for everyone.”

“Choice” goes out the window when people choose wrong.

My mother the old church organist and choir master used to go up the wall post-Vatican II–”I’m a devout Catholic, and priests need to be married. I am a devout Catholic, and if communion isn’t open to everybody whether they’re Catholic or not, it’s wrong. I’m a devout Catholic, and …”

I have always had a certain degree of respect for the black bishop that started Imani Temple–he felt Catholicism was not meeting the needs of the African American community, so rather than b*tch and moan about it, he started his own church. Good for him to be honest!

Well, the “reformation” changed who ruled the Catholics in England, all because divorce was not allowed in Catholicism. There are religious denominations to fit anyone’s religious needs or beliefs. Rather than change church doctrine, change churches. Bottom line is, religion is still a first amendment right and those beliefs associated with that religion. They run it as their doctrine dictates. All others, keep your filthy hands out of our cookie jar.